Boeing's Woes Shouldn't Be an Indictment of Electric Cars

These days, you don't need to be an engineer to know what a lithium-ion battery is. Half the country now knows that lithium-ion chemistries played a role in fires aboard Boeing's 787 Dreamliner. The term has been used in newspapers, on television news programs, and on tens of thousands of websites around the world.

So it's probably inevitable that much of the public is now making the connection between Boeing's fires and electric vehicles. And news organizations are helping make that connection.

A recent NBC News story asked whether Boeing's woes would "short-circuit" electric cars. Numerous other news sites have tracked the stock market effects of the debacle on electric vehicle manufacturers. And a Chicago Tribune story about imported products even used a graphic depicting burning bread in a toaster with Boeing's name on it. A caption under the photo asked, "...what might be expected of lithium-cobalt oxide batteries?"

If all of that is beginning to sound like an indictment of lithium-ion batteries, then that's a shame.

Yes, it's true that today's electric cars and plug-in hybrids use lithium-ion batteries. And it's true that lithium-ion is more prone to overheating than, say, lead-acid or nickel-metal hydride chemistries. But the term that too often gets left out of these discussions is "engineering." This is what engineers do. It's what they're good at. They take energy sources and make them do work. And if they do their jobs right, then they do it safely.

"No matter how you slice it, a lithium-ion battery, or any high-performance battery, is a package of energy," Elton Cairns, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at the University of California-Berkeley, and a designer of fuel cells for NASA's Gemini flights, told Design News. "If they had put a similarly-sized vessel of gasoline in place of that Boeing battery, it would have been an even bigger fire hazard."

To be sure, the lithium cobalt oxide chemistry used by Boeing is even more energetic than other lithium chemistries. But that's not really the issue. The issue is that engineers are supposed to determine the energy level, and then build in mechanisms to make the situation safe for users.

That's why engineers at General Motors put 144 plates filled with liquid coolant between the lithium-ion cells on the Chevy Volt. It's why Toyota uses 42 sensors to monitor temperatures of the Prius PHV's lithium-ion batteries, as well as three fans to cool the cells. It's also why engineers use special electrical connectors to prevent against shorts inside and outside their batteries. And why they employ battery management ICs to monitor performance. It's all part of the process of learning to manage the energy.

The point is, lithium-ion is energetic, but with proper engineering, not dangerous. Over many decades, engineers have learned how to safely operate internal combustion engines with gasoline, stoves with natural gas, and jets with jet fuel. Yet, we don't fret about the gasoline, jet fuel, or natural gas. Why? Because we expect engineers to manage the risks. And engineers will do the same with lithium-ion batteries, assuming our risk-averse society doesn't block the way.

"As long as you have a battery that contains a lot of energy, you'll never have 100 percent protection against some kind of failure," Cairns told us. "It's all a matter of proper design and acceptance of a certain amount of risk."

Perhaps you ought to change the title of your entry: "Knowledgable designers without applying wisdom = Danger!" The assumption here is that a company like Tesla has been able to apply lithium ion technology in their car without a single fire! The computerized thermal management system developed by their engineers has served well so far, so why not share the wealth with Boeing? There are billions of lithium ion packs scattered over the face of the earth in as many electronic gizmos. Do you see a panic to dump them for the older nicad or nickel metal hydride? Boeing would be WISE to accept the help offered by the Tesla engineers!

My favorite post. Every word true and politically correct. If i was a conspiracy theorist i would say that the oil companies have it in for us and are using the media to delay electric car development. Im not a consipracy theorist hence i blame the ignorance of the media. This is my most favorite post ever.

Today I had to purchase some new tires so visited our corporate supplier to confirm my conclusion of a defective front left tire. A very savy service tech confirmed same. So I told him to figure (2) for the front since it is a FWD car. He ordered them for installation the next day. On my arrival for installation I was informed the two NEW TIRES would HAVE TO BE INSTALLED ON THE REAR wheels. A HEATED discussion comenced! The store manager (quickly) arrived on the spot and a rather long, but friendly discussion proceeded with most of the customers listening intently. The manager gave my company 2 more tires FREE to show their appreciation my corporations past patronage and explained to all listening why tire companies are taking this approach. 1. To save customers. 2. To SAVE LAWSUITS!

He went on to explain a new set of Firestones were put on the front with the worn tires moved to the rear. The driver departed; a rear tire blew; control was lost; car filpped; burned; driver sued; HUGE damages; end of story!

NOW, one might GUESS what BOEING IS THINKING about and the raz-ma-taz discussed, makes interesting press, but not a wise management call. Keeping the beast on the ground until ALL the Qs are answered keeps stockholders AND passangers happy.

In real life, the engineer is not in control. The money people are. The money people make the final assessment - not the engineer - and it is money based. It has nothing to do with safety per se.

They ask questions like how many people may get killed/hurt? and what is our liability? When the product reaches an acceptable risk level - based on money alone - then the product is deemed ready for production.

Has 9it been mentioned as to how much of the engineering on the battery system on the dreamliner was outsourced? It has been published that Boeing has had problems with quite a few of the places where outsourced talent was used. Problems are exactly what I have learned to expect from outsourced engineering work, so that revalation would not be surprising to me. Keeping high energy batteries in a safe condition is a challenge, there is no question about that, and forgetting to include active cooling is one of those simplifying choices that appears to have been wrong. Of course it is also possible that it is stricktly a quality problem, that has not been mentiond at all, one way or the other. The fact stands that a poorly produced version of an excellent design will probably not perform as intended. That goes for battery packs and many other things, and it needs to be remembered.

I agree that plug-in, all-electric cars are a terrible idea ... a case of burning more fuel elsewhere ("not in my back yard") than would be necessary with a good hybrid (kinetic energy-conserving) vehicle. But, notwithstanding that, if Boeing wants to do the battery industry a favor, which I think it owes, it should step up to the plate and admit that they screwed up the design. And as to "how can we expect auto makers to use them right?", just look at Tesla (as I understand it, they've even offered to help Boeing). All I can think is that Boeing used some interns or newbies to design these battery boxes. I'm no expert, but common sense tells me not to crowd things together if each of them is getting hot ... the cumulative effect could be easily predicted. Shame on Boeing!

Those who have cited concerns about the use of the word "fire" make good points, which are well-received here. In these articles, however, I've used the word "fire" as it was used by the National Transportation Safety Board, which did the teardown and even used the word "fire" in its press release headline of January 14th: "NTSB Provides Second Investigative Update on Boeing 787 Battery Fire in Boston." Also in the lede of the press release: "The National Transportation Safety Board today released a second update on the January 7 fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan International Airport in Boston." As several commenters have suggested, the word "fire" is often used incorrectly. Here, however, it appears to be appropriate, based on the NTSB's investigation.

If you’re developing an embedded monitoring and control application, then you’ll want to take note of the upcoming Design News Continuing Education Center class, “Embedded Development Using Microchip Microcontrollers and the CCS C Compiler."

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.